Talk:Zoë Quinn

Pronouns

I don’t ever want to have the pronouns conversation because I feel equally apathetic to being called “he” or “she” so I guess if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any.

https://thezoequinn.tumblr.com/post/155785701663/a-gender

--ChiveFungi (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So Quinn says all of those three prounouns are fine. As using "they" as Quinn's pronoun is the one that makes the text the hardest to read, I suggest we use "he" or "she" (we could throw a dice) --Distelfinck (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quinn says all the pronouns are fine, but that "they" is the 'accurate' choice. I don't think it's a big deal, but I would go with "they." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quinn's "if you just want to be accurate" reads like "if you want to be a party pooper" to me. I think we can read many things into her vague comments. Do we really want to use a pronoun different from the one Quinn herself uses? Her website uses "she". I'm not aware of any instance where she used "they" for herself --Distelfinck (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The post where the quote originates strikes me as pretty straightforward, but I have no special insight. As I say, I'd be in favor of sticking with "they," but I will certainly abide by a decision of the great and good of Wikipedia. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

According to MOS:GENDERID, Wikipedia uses the "latest expressed gender self-identification" , so any content on their website written before this Tumblr post is irrelevant. If Wikipedia cares about accuracy then I don't see how we can ignore the subject telling us what pronoun is accurate. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Accurate" is not the same as "preferred." To be accurate, my name is "Nathaniel", but I prefer to be called "Nat". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is 100% true, but as pointed out, MOS:GENDERID essentially says that in this instance we go with preference. Thanks.

You might want to explain this bizarre use of they in the article, because it looks like it's been written by a child and/or vandalised as is. Not to mention difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway45 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Throwaway45: Perhaps you'd prefer Simple Wiki if you have trouble reading this version of Wikipedia.

PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

We prefer "us'd", not you'd

I think what Throwaway is trying to say is that we may want to include in the article, in a prominent place, an explanation that Quinn prefers the pronoun "they", because the use being put here is not standard usage (even those arguing for the singular "they" are generally arguing for its usage where there is not a specified named individual, replacing "he" as the generic, rather than for use where the individual is fully specified.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)e

After the protest at UC Berkeley, it's likely lot of readers will take the wikilinks journey I did from Milo Yiannopoulos to Gamergate to this page. We need an article the follows basic English grammar and wikipedia's style guidelines. [1]. The current article innovates in the English language which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See [2]. The views on the English language of the subject are irrelevant to the style in which the article is written. Veej (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"It's increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing." Excellent. So we're all in agreement that singular they is acceptable. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If singular "they" was good enough for Shakespeare, I think it's good enough for Wikipedia! Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that we are not Shakespeare, or in Shakespeare's time. Grammar rules have changed quite often since the 1500s, and every grammar book I read growing up had they as a third person plural pronoun. I'm not against a singular they entirely, as it has it's appropriate uses (Ex: Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?). However, sentences like "Quinn also has a magnetic implant in their left ring finger" sound absolutely ridiculous when spoken out loud. I believe that a rewrite of portions of the article, using as little pronouns as possible, is the best solution to this problem. R00b07 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Quinn isn't offended by "she." If it doesn't offend her, keep "she." There are lots of interviews in many reliable sourse for "she" vs. some tumblr blog. --DHeyward (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure, but I think MOS:GENDERID should apply. And there we are told "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." Hence, per our Manual of Style, I would say keep "they." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And also includes how they present themselves. She undoubtedly presents herself as female. She is not offended by that pronoun so why complicate the obvious with the obtuse? There is no indication of gender ambiguity or identity in reliable sources. There is a big difference between sayin she supports transgender rights vs. identifying as transgender. --DHeyward (talk)

"She presents herself as female." Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not my opinion. Quinn says she presents herself as female. So do all the reliable sources that use pronouns. Her blog says she doesn't always think of herself in any specific way and sometimes when she views herself, the image is more female than she feels. She didn't stop presenting herself as female, just noted the incongruity. It's no reason to change pronouns, though, if they do not offend. Unless you want to rip out all her comments and coverage as a "female game developer" and mansplain why her views no longer are from the perspective of a female game developer, it's more accurate to cover gender ambiguity and keep the pronouns feminine. Her notability stems from perceptions of misogyny and slut-shaming and turning her bio into an androgynous mess damages and distorts what she said, man. --DHeyward (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the reference is lost on you. You should watch The Big Lebowski, it might mellow you out. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems especially apt since it could be said that we are debating preferred nomenclature. Dumuzid (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, the pronoun issue is something they have talked about themself, and their blog is a reliable source for limited information about personal issues. I actually agree that it's a bit obtuse and leads to somewhat inelegant English, but I don't think either of those is a reason to override the subject's wishes. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Rather inappropriate and off topic EvergreenFir (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Zoe Quinn is not a woman, how can she be the victim of "misogyny"? Misogyny is, by definition, the hatred of women.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC) I quite agree about the definition of misogyny, but to me, hatred resides in the heart of the hater, rather than in the existence of the hated. Thus, anyone perceived as a woman might be the victim of misogyny. Had someone wandered on to the set of "Some Like It Hot" and punched Jack Lemmon in the head because said someone mistook him for a woman, then Jack Lemmon would be the victim of a misogynistic attack, despite little to no confusion about his gender identity. Just the way I see it! Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DHeyward said in an edit summary: "Not okay to imply Gjoni as in anything but hetero." This article is not implying Gjoni is non-heterosexual, you are inferring it. And if the article was all correct and cited, and it did suggest he wasn't heterosexual, there would be nothing wrong with that, because there's nothing wrong with not being heterosexual. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say, this line of reasoning strikes me as unconvincing. No one disputes that there was a relationship, and no one seriously disputes the subject's pronoun preferences (though that is not dispositive of what Wikipedia should use). How you wish to describe those facts is a different question. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being female or male either so it's rather incredulous that a "she" is unacceptable. All the reliable sources use feminine pronouns for Quinn. Quinn identified as female during the notable portions of her life. Zoe is feminine. "Ms. Zoe Quinn" on her cardboard signs at talks and the U.N. is feminine. She presents in the Boston Globe article in a dress and feminine clothing. But to the point: Quinn isn't offended by feminine pronouns. The reliable sources portray all her notable relationships as heterosexual where she is female and her partner is male. Her notability is in a narrow period where we even limit discussion of her name. Her blogged gender as a plural "they" is all beyond the time where she is covered in reliable sources. Given the complexity of multiple partners, misogyny and harassment, pronouns referring to Quinn should be feminine and singular. It is not okay to imply her partners were poly or homosexual or that she was involved with multiple people in a poor attempt to make "they" seem singular. The purpose of MOS:GENDERID isn't to make the subject look schizophrenic nor is its purpose to add ambiguity to other persons sexual preference. Her latest revelation is best treated as a standalone paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "she" is unacceptable. I do think that given MOS:GENDERID's instruction that we "[g]ive precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources" we should go with "their." I see no confusion regarding any of her partners' sexual orientation or activities. With all due respect, this is thin gruel indeed. Dumuzid (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due -- I think Strongjam's solution is an elegant way to fix the perceived problem. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward's arguments are obviously not convincing to most other participants in the discussion. The discussion isn't going anywhere; it's time to either escalate dispute resolution, or move on to other things.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone may want to put a tag or note at the top of the talk page or article page about why the article uses "they" as a pronoun as opposed to he or she. Or perhaps in the FAQ. I must admit it was quite confusing to me as someone unfamiliar with the subject until I came to this talk page and read it through. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I have just noticed the footnote after the first usage of "they" where it is written that Quinn is not a girl or woman, per their Tumblr page. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of you folks need to watch "Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla" in the old "Grammar Rock" series. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530

It sounds like the most recent preference is "they", so that's what we should use. Use of singular they is certainly not a Wikipedia innovation (or even an innovation at all) as some other folks have suggested, so this shouldn't even be controversial. Kaldari (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While it's not that important I disagree. Quinn clearly states no preference. The most recent self-designation I can see is the front page of her Unburnt Witch site, which uses "she". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

Quinn is currently (April 28, 2017), referring to herself as "she" on her own home page:

http://www.unburntwitch.com/about.html

Doesn't that trump the tumblr post and kinda end the story, at least for now? If the subject herself does not go out of her way to replace her own pronouns, why should an encyclopedia? The article is currently bending over backwards to replace most pronouns with Quinn, resulting in a Quinn echo. "They" is also used here and there, but pronouns generally seem to be avoided.

--Jcr13 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this should be handled, but completely avoiding the use of any pronoun at all makes the writing much more confusing than the use of a singular they. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, after reading her own homepage (still says "she" as of Jun 29 2017), I'm with Jcr13 on this particular issue. "They" and the repeated use of "Quinn" makes the article confusing and more difficult to read, and there's really no good reason to continue it in light of the fact that Quinn's own page uses "she" and her tumblr post itself states she doesn't care what pronoun is used. I think it's completely WP:OR to say that she "prefers" "they", as that's not explicitly stated at all. In summary, I would support going back to the use of "she" on this article. Rockypedia (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this way too. While Ms. Quinn certainly voiced the preference for "they" at one time, it doesn't seem as though it still obtains. Barring some new statement or the like, I'd say it's fair to go back to the expected pronouns. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The about page was written on or before January 2016 (archive.org link). The "A Gender" post was posted almost a year later. Wikipedia goes by "latest expressed gender self-identification". Just because they don't care if people use the wrong pronouns, doesn't mean we should ignore the part where they explicitly say which pronouns are correct. We go by "gender self-identification" not "any pronoun that doesn't offend the subject". --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If someone expresses a preference, then that's what we should use. Whether Quinn is consistent really shouldn't matter to us. Besides, there are plenty of cases where people refer to themselves using controversial/objectionable/insulting/what-have-you terms, but that doesn't give us leave to use those same terms in Wikipedia's voice. Woodroar (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that we've made the article confusing and unreadable based on an almost offhand flippant remark in a tumblr post: "I guess if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any." That hardly seems like a solid endorsement of the editing that's been done here. Rockypedia (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just jumping in here because I read the article just now and...was very confused by the pronoun usage. From reading above, this happens quite a bit, and is a very fixable thing. I totally get why the balance of pros/cons is justified when the subject of the article has a very obvious PGP and the source material and the subject's sources all have a consensus. Then MOS:GENDERID is very easy to follow and uncontroversial, and the singular they can be the obvious choice...But right now this is not the case for Zoë Quinn. What we're doing here is using Wikipedia as a place to take an activist stand about PGPs expressed once in a blog post a while ago and then barely followed. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of activism and interpretation. If one is reading the MOS:GENDERID to the intent of the law, it becomes clear the most recently utilized and expressed pronoun is the one we should be using. And the subject of the article, Ms. Quinn, is referred to as "she" fairly regularly in her own promotional/publisher material. So we should refer to her that way as well. If anyone vehemently disagrees, we can do a consensus vote or escalate. But if no one disagreees, I'll happily change the article myself. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet "business boy" is the most recent gendered term I could find on social media, which could be serious or totally flippant. Gender is complicated and we don't know the particulars, nor do we need to. Quinn said that the accurate pronounce is "they" so we should use that per our policies. Woodroar (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Gender is complicated, and it's our job as editors to sort out how it should be displayed on BLP pages. Just because it's controversial and hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It's difficult because people rarely use their own pronouns when speaking in the first person. So In my personal opinion about this messy topic, I think relying on material directly published from Quinn's book agents and publishers is the closest we have to her consented gender pronoun as of now. So that would be "she/her/hers." "Business boy" is not a PGP, and "boys" can prefer she/her/hers or they/their/theirs. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Quinn's blog post we are basing the pronoun on now seems to have been deleted --Distelfinck (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted or not, it's still the "latest expressed gender self-identification" so I don't think this changes anything. Here's the Wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170402213912/https://thezoequinn.tumblr.com/post/155785701663/a-gender --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Deleted or not"...This is tunnel vision. When someone deletes a blog post, I don't think continuing to call it an "expression of their wishes" is correct. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Her Crash Override book just came out 11 days ago, and she's using the pronoun "she" in all the promotional materials surrounding it. I think we can finally lay this to rest. Example: [3] We're now basing this solely on a deleted tumblr post, and not on the latest materials released by the subject herself? Surely she had full control over the wording that accompanied her own book. Jcr13 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Long Zoe Quinn NYMag article

Probably worth including stuff here at Zoe's article more than GGC. http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Massachusetts Court of Appeal and original name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've seen a lot of arguments that Volokh is not a reliable source due to being an opinion writer.<redacted> now states what Zoe Quinn's original name is. There is now nearly no possible justifiable reason to redact that Zoe Quinn used to be called <redacted>, unless, of course, one disputes that the Massachusetts Court of Appeal is a reliable source. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source not in PDF.<link redacted> This is an official legal record that states what her name formerly was. If nobody disputes this in the next few days, I'll make the necessary changes and include it in the article. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use official court records as a source for personal information. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As I stated last time this came up, personally, I don't believe it would be "wrong" to include the name. I just think it's a proper use of discretion in this instance, given the subject's preferences and a history of harassment. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to affirmatively include this information other than that "we can." I've yet to see an actual argument made as to what substance including her former name would add to our understanding of her. The argument that "we can do something, therefore we should do it," is akin to arguing that something is not literally illegal to express. There's a lot of stuff we could include, but reliable sources don't tend to include it, so neither should we (IMO). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what the point of including her birth name in the article is other than to facilitate further harassment. She has never been notable under that name, and given that she is not a prominent public figure, she should be entitled to some degree of privacy, per WP:BLP. Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above points. Birth name should stay out. Rockypedia (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've redacted the name and link to the name above, as there is no reason for Wikipedia to publicise it. You can discuss whether it should be included or not without needing to emblazon it everywhere you can. Unless and until there is consensus to include it, please do not reintroduce it to this or any other page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: What link have you redacted? Just the PDF? The court case that includes the names is still present. It is is also present in the links I have posted below. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources include the name if the problem is just using legal documents. <links removed> --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not simply the sourcing. The subject of the article was never notable under that name and has been the subject of harassment. I, for one, believe that this is an easy call--that is, we're leaving out a piece of non-notable information, and one that might (in theory, anyway) conceivably lead to future harassment. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That is a reasonable reason to leave out the information. I mentioned the secondary sources as WP:BLPPRIMARY was mentioned above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I've removed your links as well. The problem is that they display the name, not the nature of the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone reintroducing those or other links that mention the name, without having got consensus for inclusion first, are liable to be blocked for disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I can understand the removal of my links, but why have you not redacted the court case link? The name is present on the first page in the footnotes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Human error, now removed also. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not contentious and it's not harassment to include an undisputed fact on a talk page. It's a fact what her name is, and "potential harassment" is not a good enough reason to censor that information from a talk page, considering that no evidence of said harassment from the use of her name has been shown. Here's Volokh and his amicus brief being cited in a major secondary source, by the way. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages, but that's not exactly why I am in favor of leaving it out. I see lots of potential downsides, but none up. With regards to borderline cases of privacy, I like to default in favor of keeping things private. But I'm wrong a lot, or so people tell me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not the only one who holds such a view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chess: your claim that the information you want to include is "what her name is" makes it hard to take your position in good faith. Her name is Zoë Quinn, and that is what we are calling her. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Potential harassment is very much a good enough reason to not include information on a Wikipedia page - read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. This policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia and this is non-negotiable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless anyone presents a good reason (or any reason at all besides "we can") for including Quinn's former name in her biographical article — that is, what does it add to our encyclopedic understanding of her? — I suggest this thread be closed as unproductive. There is very clearly no consensus to include her former name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's harassment that has not been shown to exist as a result of her former name. I am in favor of free and open discussion, and while there may not be consensus to include her name in the article itself, the wholesale censoring of any links or mention of her former name on the talk page isn't very justifiable, considering that many sources that may discuss the ongoing court case between Gjoni and Quinn may mention her name. User:Thryduulf has mentioned that any link that states her former name being posted would make that editor liable to be blocked, which means that the Volokh Conspiracy articles above should be removed, and the Boston Globe article on the case would also be redacted. Would it be preferable not to use her name when it is not needed? Yes, sure, there's consensus for that. But I don't think there is any blanket consensus to adopt a "she-who-shall-not-be-named" policy when the name either would make sense to be used in context, or is mentioned in an outside source that would otherwise be allowed to link. Also, @David Eppstein:, I'd prefer if you didn't make unsupported implications that I might not be acting in good faith. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

In regards to harassment as a result of her former name, her family were tracked down and received abuse - in particular her father, who received threatening calls and abuse over email [4]. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The article does not say that the harassment was caused as "a result of her former name". It says that harassment was after the publication of the Zoe Post, which did not use her original name. Do you seriously think that online mobs can't do a Google search for the Boston Globe or Washington Post?

Again, I am fine with the WP article not mentioning her original name: I can see the argument that there's little upside and a fair bit of downside. However, the wildly inappropriate application of BLP policy to revdel links and threatening blocks is wrong. Talk pages of BLP pages are not [5] in Google (however archives seem to be, because they don't contain the BLP template, which includes the noindex template). To think that some online troll would try to read Wikipedia talk pages to find links which they could have anyway found out using a thousand different methods (including a simple Google search) is to strain credibility. The measure is ham-handed, useless and arbitrary. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how people tracked down her family without knowing her original name, but it seems unlikely that they found a different method. At any rate, I'm just responding to the question regarding whether or not there was harassment as a result of knowing her birth name, as opposed to the name she now uses. The revdel issue is a different matter. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chess: Read more carefully. I didn't say that you weren't acting in good faith. I said that the way you wrote things is problematic, because that phrasing makes your good faith less apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia. However, one can disagree in which cases BLP applies, and to what extent. One can argue that due to, say WP:HARM, Quinn's name should not be listed in the article. But citing a Boston Globe article on the talk page is grounds for blocking now? This is the most absurd misapplication of BLP policy that I've seen lately. Since I had myself linked to the Globe article and the court document in the section above (which are all unredacted, by the way) perhaps I should be blocked too? This is absolutely ridiculous.

BLP allows redactions without consensus and revdeling stuff hinders talk page discussion. For precisely these reasons, BLPs are meant to apply in unambigous cases, with little chance of dissent. Here is the applicable sentence from WP:REVDEL: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed.. Well, count me in the dissent category. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have good-faith reverted the closing of this section. I would like to get clarity on this matter here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing was appropriate. This is a waste of time which cannot and should not lead to any changes to the article. Redacting information which is of no use in improving the article but has repeatedly been used as a tool of harassment is common-sense. Move on, please. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a general discussion forum about the article subject. If someone is going to propose adding Quinn's previous name to this article, they should make a formal proposal and, likely, an RFC, because there is clearly not a consensus for any such addition at this time. If someone isn't going to make such a proposal, there is no reason to continue to discuss this matter because it would have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is not about the article subject. The discussion is about the application of the BLP policy to revdel stuff on the page. This is not the first time this has happened (I have seen people blocked over similar matters before). Since I did the same thing a few months ago, which is apparently now a blockable offence based on an arbitrary reading of the policy, I would like to get clarity on the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I understand both your point of view and desire for clarity, but I do think at this point that it seems like something that might be more suited to the talk page over at WP:BLPN, perhaps? Just a thought. I certainly won't be heaping any opprobrium should you continue here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If no one is going to propose adding the name, there is no reason for it to be mentioned here at all and there is no reason not to revdel it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This comment is so absurd that I don't know what to say. If thing X isn't included in the article, then everything having anything to do with X should be all revdeled, and even links from mainstream newspapers mentioning X should be revdeled, and people who add such links should be blocked? Perhaps we can start with blocking everyone who commented on this page, because I doubt anyone here would survive such a standard. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Years of sustained harassment, including death threats to this woman's family, should not be ignored. This isn't "X" as some abstraction, this is information which actively makes harassment easier. There isn't even a small benefit to Wikipedia. There is no valid reason to keep this. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving of BLP talk pages

The BLP template includes the NOINDEX template. However, the archives of BLP talk pages (including this one), don't contain the BLP header, and thus are indexable. Someone should fix the bot so that there is a BLP template on the archives as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the documentation, and it seems that this issue might be fixed with the "archiveheader" parameter in the bot header. Someone who is more conversant than me with the syntax should do it. I'll get to it when I have the time, if nobody else does. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I've manually updated the archives already as well. Probably should be brought up as an enhancement for the bot to add NOINDEX to archived pages if the source page has it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the FAQ and the two AfD's of this page as well. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

2016 photo

First: File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg
Second: File:Zoe Quinn at GDC 2016 (25777166301) (cropped).jpg

• [6] @Rockypedia, that the 2016 image is more encyclopedic than the 2014 car image seems to me to be uncontroversial—it's current, clearer, and was taken during a professional speaking engagement. I don't see what discussion is needed.  czar 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Go ahead and do it! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the 2016 photo is much less flattering than the 2014 one, and therefore should not be used. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There's probably a better image out there than either of these two, but given the well-sourced online vitriol directed at Quinn, choosing the less-complimentary photo of these two is a no-go. Even suggesting that that's the better photo makes it seem like you have an agenda. No way. Rockypedia (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear! Our purpose is neither to flatter nor condemn. Nor is it to attempt to address external wrongs, egregious though they may be. The pertinent policy or guideline is MOS:LEADIMAGE. Make an argument based on that. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If neither image is clear shouldn't we just remove them both, and a link to Commons? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I fail to see how the 2016 image is somehow not complimentary: head-on portrait, smiling, during a professional engagement. WP rarely gets up-to-date free use images of this quality. You can even tighten the crop and make it clearer. It's worked this way across the dozens if not hundreds of biography pages I've edited, your baseless accusations aside. Is this how this talk page works? Everything has to go to RfC? czar 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well could you crop it, and perhaps remove the microphone? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And for those who want to see a free-use image this is not complimentary or of high quality then please see File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg, and only after that should you accuse an editor of having an agenda. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of "flattery", we should lead with withever image is better quality. The new image looks like a bad snapshot rather than a professional photograph - the composition is unbalanced, the subject isn't looking at the camera, etc. The "car" image isn't great either, but it's definitely a better photograph. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

original source for 2016 image

• One image is much more complimentary than the other, but that's not a trivial concern. We shouldn't ignore aesthetics, since the lede photo is the main visual representation of the person in the article. We cannot claim to be respectful if we actively chose to use an insultingly unflattering image. The newer one is definitely less flattering to a fault. Sorry, but I really don't understand how anyone could claim otherwise. The car shot isn't ideal for an encyclopedia, but until something better one comes along, this is the better choice by a mile. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Furthermore, keep the lead image; include the professional engagement image in the text as an example of professional engagment & continuing advocacy. kencf0618 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems like it would make more sense to use the full image for that. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

We could use this high quality image File:Zoe Quinn Camera 2014.jpg for the infobox and the full image in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Preferred Gender Pronouns to be used in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since January of this year, editors have been conflicted about which pronouns to use in Quinn's BLP article. As a result of controversies and events in the subject's life (Gamergate is the obvious one), any discussion like this can become contentious, heated, and personal. But the point of Wikipedia is to rise above these controversies and display facts from as close to a WP:NPOV as possible, while following the WP:BLP guidelines as closely as possible. In this case, the relevant guidelines are MOS:GENDERID, which clearly states that we should "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." I'll summarize the points made by all sides below:

In the case of Quinn, some editors pointed to a blog post published on the subject's personal tumblr that says "I don’t ever want to have the pronouns conversation because I feel equally apathetic to being called “he” or “she” so I guess if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any." In this, the subject remarks on apathy for gendered PGPs, but defaults to "they/their/them."

Some editors remarked on their distaste for the Singular they, but wikipedia is pretty clear on this. The singular they is a perfectly acceptable use of english grammar on this site. As is stated in MOS:GENDERID, it does require a note of explanation when nonconventional or if it would be confusing to the general public.

Further complicating the issue is that Quinn has since deleted the blog post in question. Whether a deleted blog post can still be said to be the author's "most up-to-date" "self-designation" is up for debate.

Numerous reliable sources from the source's publisher, personal website, and retweeted, blogged, and referenced by the subject use "she/her/hers." But, as has been noted in MOS:GENDERID, this isn't about what is published the most widely. It's about the preferences of the subject.

Sources

So what do we do? Please state your vote in bold text with an explanation in the space below. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

she/her/hers I think since the subject deleted the blog post in question, we should disregard this post as an 'expression of the subject's self-designation.' Instead, we should default to the PGP used in news/press releases/twitter/etc as uncorrected by the subject. I also (perhaps, controversially) think that these things boil down to a cost/benefit analysis. Does the benefit of appealing to a PGP expressed and then retracted by a subject who also expresses very little frustration with the common use of "she/her/hers" outweigh the costs of a more confusing article full of grammar workarounds? In this case, no I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

She/her The deletion of the blog post may be a retraction of Quinn's previous self-designation. We can't be certain without additional clarification from the subject. But [if] it has not been retracted, then it is still true that all pronouns are acceptable, including "she/her". Reach Out to the Truth 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• We should use they/their per MOS:GENDERID, as that was the most recent explicit self-designation. Quinn has used "she" in the past, but also the gendered noun "boy". (Note that gendered nouns are valid self-identification per our own guidelines.) What the subject's publisher says shouldn't matter, or else our biographies hagiographies would describe every celebrity as five years younger and kilos lighter. Whether or not the source is WP:OFFLINE also shouldn't matter, or articles on every out-of-print book or album would include some speculation about how the author/artist/publisher was deeply ashamed about its contents and secretly fears it being reissued and won't you please stop talking about this dark time in their life thank you very much. I also get the idea that Quinn doesn't care very much either way, hence the varied personal usage, which also suggests to me that singular they is the best approach. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I really think your interpretation of "It's me, the business boy" is reading into things, a particularly persnickety flavor of WP:OR... Could be a joke, a play on gender stereotypes, anything. Plenty of people who wear "boyish" clothes identify as women. And Quinn in numerous places in her recent book describes herself as "a woman." She explicitly disavowed cross-dressing in that deleted blogpost, etc. That is most definitely not an expression of gender preferences from a RS.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am fairly apathetic about this particular case. Quinn has published a lot of material we don't use, in particular relating to other careers she has had. Jumping on minutiae of a (now) deleted blog post to change the pronouns, even when it was clear that this wasn't a preference, seems undue weight. Given that we have introduced inaccuracies to the article perusing this particular goal, I would suggest that a clear use of the pronouns she/her where the referent is clear would be fine. I would caution anyone implementing this not to blanket change "they" to "she", as a blanket change of "they" to "Quinn" really messed things up previously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

she/her/hers I got an email about the RFC, so I'll repeat what I just wrote above down here: Her Crash Override book just came out 11 days ago, and she's using the pronoun "she" in all the promotional materials surrounding it. I think we can finally lay this to rest. Example: [7] We're now basing this solely on a deleted tumblr post, and not on the latest materials released by the subject herself? Surely she had full control over the wording that accompanied her own book. Jcr13 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Surely she had full control over the wording that accompanied her own book" - that sound you just heard was a a vast contingent of authors laughing. -- Author Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

She/Her/Hers For the reasons outlined by @Jcr13. This isn't even really up for debate if Quinn is using "she" as her own pronoun again. R00b07 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

She/Her. Her website currently includes self-identification as a woman. See Quinn, Zoë. "August Never Ends", Unburntwitch.com (November 1, 2015): "It’s important to know that I am not special here - it’s a fate I share with every other woman that is a high-profile target of online harassment." This seems more relevant than a deleted "apathetic" blog post or promotional materials using "she" that may have been written by other people. Also see: Quinn, Zoe. Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life, and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate, pp. ‪8 and 37 (‪PublicAffairs‬, ‪2017): "‬I'm a queer feminine person....I was seemingly the only woman in the room without a college degree...."‪ Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Feminine pronouns Since this is 'default' and no clear valid 'personal pref.' reason is given for deviating from it, to use anything else is drawing attention to a matter of little significance to us (or apparently her). Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note I am not sure if an RfC overrules MOS, so make sure that any answers are policy based and not just votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting (and horrifying) to me that people think this RfC is an attempt to overrule policy or (as said to me elsewhere) to help Quinn determine her own PGPs or an attempt to hurt or attack Quinn. None of those things are true. A RfC would be obviously unneeded if the policy could be clearly applied. In this particular case, in the absence of a clear application of the MOS, we have to escalate to dispute resolution to help determine how to apply the MOS. This is the first step in that process. If Quinn tweets tomorrow from a verified twitter account "I prefer they/their/them, thanks everybody" then this RfC would instantaneously be meaningless. This RfC is needed in the absence of clear info.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

she/her/hers On her official website, which you can access by clicking "Official website" on her Wikipedia article, is a page about her book that has freshly come out, where it says: "... She is a video game developer ..." --Distelfinck (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

She/her/hers While people's self identification should be used, what she identified with, was, essentially, whatever you want. Given that everyone else uses "her", there's no real reason to change it, as she said she was ambivalent about it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, was there any other source nevertheless reason to use "they" over "she" besides the single (now deleted) Tumblr post? If not, the litany of official/affiliated sources using "she" in relation to Quinn's book would appear to indicate the author's preference. czar 05:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Though there isn't yet a guideline for this, in case of apathy, I before following the reliable sources is the "next best thing". Therefore, I too suggest using feminine pronouns. ~Mable (chat) 05:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Feminine pronouns for now. The Tumblr post where Quinn suggests preference for singular they appears to be deleted. As Quinn has control over the blog, the cab be interpreted as a reaction or at least not an accident. As such, the removal of that statement, to me, indicates it should not be considered as part of MOS:GENDERID. Thus, use of feminine pronouns is appropriate as they are verifiable with reliable sources (WP:V) in reference to Quinn and appear on webpages Quinn assumably had editorial control over (see links about to personal website). That said, should this individual ever explicitly stated a different preference, we must change to that preference. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"That said, should this individual ever explicitly stated a different preference, we must change to that preference". Does this rule apply to everyone who has a bio, or just Zoe? Also, no matter how ridiculous the pronoun is, or no matter how grammatically incorrect it is, Wikipedia must conform to personal pronoun preferences? If I was deemed worthy of having a Wiki article, and I requested that people call me by the pronouns "xystred" and "CA$HMONEY", would Wikipedia have to use those pronouns in the article? R00b07 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, I think MOS:GENDERID is a fair guideline. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@R00b07: The answer to your disingenuous question is at MOS:GENDERID. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My question wasn't disingenuous at all. It was in complete sincerity. I was simply highlighting the lengths of absurdity that can be reached with MOS:GENDERID, if followed to a T. MOS:GENDERID states to use people's self-designation, but also to avoid confusing constructions. Well, when your personal pronoun makes little sense on a grammatical level (like a singular they, or CA$HMONEY instead of he/she, for example, conflicts occur.) R00b07 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Singular they" was good enough for William Shakespeare; CA$HMONEY, to my knowledge, was not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Our language has changed quite considerably since the time of Shakespeare. We don't use the word "Unhousel'd", nor do we say "Ay, there's the rub". If you want to read Wiki articles in Shakespearean English, that's fine, be my guest. But at the very least, we should be consistent. Either have everything written in 1600s English (use a singular they; and also use words like "thine" and "thou", as well as other archaic words); or have everything written in fairly modern English (you know, where he/she is the third person singular?). But we can't pick and choose rules we like from 400 years ago because it conveniently upholds our preconceived beliefs on gender. I mean we technically can, but who are we kidding? "They (singular) also have a magnetic implant in the left ring finger" will never sound as natural, nor will it ever be as grammatically correct as, "She also has a magnetic implant on her left ring finger." R00b07 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@R00b07: This is not the place to make ridiculous arguments or to make fun of users. Please take it to your Twitter or somewhere else if you want to opine about common language use. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please show me direct evidence where I made fun of users, and I will apologize. If anything, I've been accused of being "disingenuous" and of making "ridiculous arguments" (Friendly reminder of WP:AGF), simply for having an opinion that goes against the grain. I'm simply responding to his/her point that Shakespeare used a singular they, therefore it must be okay to use a singular they at all times in Modern Standard English. I'm directly responding to their point (which didn't receive any scolding) and I didn't name call, so my point is completely valid; especially since this RfD is all about pronouns, and which ones we should use in the article. In other words, it's not like I came out of the blue and started ranting about common language usage. It was a very specific response to a statement made in response to my comment. R00b07 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@R00b07:, Just jumping in to say that many people actually do use Ay, there's the rub in a referential context. Language is not a firm construct made of stone or immutable physical laws. It's a self referential clusterfuck of norms and tendencies that wax and wane and we are left with the pieces. Let's form the pieces into something most people agree on. MOS reflects this fluidity, and I think that's a good thing. Just because it's hard to figure out when something is a "confusing construction" doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: People absolutely use Ay, there's the rub in a referential context, but I was trying to say that people don't use it on a day to day basis in everyday dialogue (In other words, we don't use the phrase for it's literal meaning, like Shakespeare did in his time). I agree that grammar and language are fluid concepts and are subject to change over time. However, I still believe that some basic rules (using standard third person singular pronouns, for example) need to be upheld, especially on an encyclopedia. R00b07 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@R00b07: I took your comment "when your personal pronoun makes little sense on a grammatical level (like a singular they..." as directed at me and others who use or would likely use singular they. If it was unintentionally (agf), okay, but it certainly could be interpreted that way. Also, using singular they is quite common in natural speech, to the extent that someone who tries to avoid it still uses it ("I'm directly responding to their point"). As for Quinn's article, if singular they were to be used, we can address specific points where the might be pronoun reference confusion as needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Feminine (Summoned by bot) Remembering that the MOS is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• She/her/hers. That appears to be the most up to date WP:GENDERID per her website.[8] Per the above, it doesn't appear that the only post where she expresses a preference for other identifiers is live anymore.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• She/her/hers - one deleted blog post does not outweigh the mountain of other sources described above, both primary and secondary, that describe subject in the feminine voice. As L3X1 astutely pointed out, MOS is a guideline, not policy, and I'm pretty sure that given the current evidence, even following the MOS guideline, we should use "she". Rockypedia (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• She/her/hers -- the same as the subject's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• She/her/hers Summoned by at bot. Based on the conclusions above and reviewing the mentioned primary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Is this some sort of joke? I was literally about to edit the entire article because I thought that somebody who didn't speak English as a first language had authored it. Just change it to "she", FFS. This is the most bureaucratic "hurdle" I've ever seen on Wikipedia and that's saying something. If you refuse to change it, at the VERY least, add some sort of indicator to the top of the article so that readers know this isn't just a poorly written article. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 08:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• She/her/hers per the book listing above and Quinn's ambivalence. It was an idiotic decision to turn this article into a gender controversy in the first place. It's already a cluster of idiotic gamergate bios in a walled garden of nuttiness. Good luck to the editor that implements this. --DHeyward (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We're Wikipedia editors. Idiotic decisions are our birthright! Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm uncertain as to how this is even a controversy. Can we not implement a specific gender? This is profoundly insane. The article reads like it was written incorrectly. Is this her call or what? I'm lost trying to figure how we're attempting to create a global encyclopedia to educate people and somehow this article doesn't want to be part of the fold. It's utterly ridiculous. You all know this, just as well as I do. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 11:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a note after the first use of "They". And yes, we use the pronouns that the article's subject requests. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See MOS:GENDERID for the relevant policy. We go by the subject's preference; the complication in this case is that it's unclear what the subject's preference is on account of both the statement sort-of saying no preference and sort-of saying "use they as default", and also being deleted. Personally, though, I'm inclined to agree that this particular discussion is slightly silly given that the point of the now-deleted blog post reads to me as "don't sweat it, I don't even want to have that conversation." The point of MOS:GENDERID is to avoid harm to the subject, and Quinn has clearly indicated that none of the choices would be harmful here (except possibly making a big deal out of it on account of the not-wanting-that-conversation part, which would mean we've chosen the worst possible choice regardless of the outcome of this RFC, haha.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• They/them. The most recent thing Zoe has said about pronouns is that "they" is correct. If nobody has any more recent explicit expression of pronoun preference, we should stick with that. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is "I guess if you just want to be accurate go for 'they' but I won’t be offended by any" really what you would call an "explicit expression"? Rockypedia (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Feminine pronouns, but only based on the present circumstances, not a per se standard. For one thing, I'd like to point out that I believe the OP may have slightly mischaracterized community consensus on the on just how absolute the primacy of self-selected gender pronouns is to every occasions. It's true, we have a style guide entry which directs us that personal preference on the part of the article subject prevails over reliable sources, even though we don't allow this for any other aspect of personal identity. It's a very controversial standard, but it has become the de facto approach in recent years. I think it's a bit peculiar that we let personal preference on gender identity supplant an approach predicated in WP:NPOV and WP:V when, as a matter of the project's core philosophy, we generally don't do this for any other aspect of personal identity. But that said, most of these discussions are tempests in teapots and at the end of the day, most articles work just as well with one set of pronouns as another.

All of that said, while rough community consensus holds that personal preference prevails over RS, you'll find more resistance to the assertion that it prevails over every practical editorial constraint. Generally if a subject transitions, it's easy enough to engineer an article to reflect the MOS:GENDERID standard and respect the subject's self-presentation. But every discussion I've seen on whether to use more idiosyncratic pronouns on a particular article (or accross articles broadly) has led to fairly limited support. Singular they is a bit of a grey area; it can lead to confusing prose in many contexts. That's not a matter of disrespect for gender identity, nor linguistic prescriptivism, it's just a pragmatic reality. That said, a really skilled set of editors could maybe make it work, though it would surely be complicated in light of the complexity of this particular BLP. It's certainly the kind of situation where, if i were a regular editor to this article, I'd want to see a comprehensive draft before I supported that approach on MOS:GENDERID grounds. Because ultimately the goal of how to describe a topic with least confusion to the general reader has to be the first priority.

I'd also want to see sufficient WP:WEIGHT in the sources to support the assertion that this was explicitly what the subject had endorsed as their gender and/or preferred pronouns. And that's really where the argument for the present article and circumstances falls short for me. I'm not convinced the sourcing supports the assertion of any gender other than the female one that accompanies RS discussion of the subject, so we should default to the present usage, unless further, more explicit statements become a matter of record in the sources; that too is something mandated by the principle of MOS:GENDERID (and yet also consistent with MOS:IDENTITY). Snow ^{let's rap} 05:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. I don't think this is the place for us to discuss the future of MOS:GENDERID and I specifically avoided making any commentary about whether or not I agree fully with the way MOS:GENDERID currently exists. Or even whether it should be followed. In this case, it's the relevant guideline, so let's treat it like a guideline. The principle of charity says you should argue against the best possible incarnation of your opponent's argument, and that's what I've done. Even with the best possible incarnation of the they pronoun argument, it appears most people still understand the feminine pronouns should be used here. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion - pronouns

I just ran across an article in Marie Claire that's by Anita Sarkeesian who's interviewing Quinn. It was published September 21. In it, feminine pronouns are used. Link EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Thank Christ for small miracles (and thank you for this update, EvergreenFir). Can we all agree now, or are we going to continue with this "they" nonsense as though we speak of some alien hive mind collective? The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an obvious consensus in the RfC to use she/her/hers. If things change in the future we can revisit; until then it's nothing to act indignant about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the consensus as I read it following my previous response. In retrospect I probably should have read that beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20, am I right? ;) I was not indignant, BTW, merely frustrated. To me, this appeared a whimsical issue to be solved with applied common sense, although I'm well aware that issues of politics and bureaucracy are conflagratory in such decisions to many people. Frankly, I'm just glad the article now reads like it was written properly. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 18:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thi is one of those article where the personalities of the editors tend to dominate the discussion. Pronouns were only slightly more contentious than using Zoë in place of Zoe. Peculiar positions taken by peculiar fellows.--DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)